Pages

Sunday, October 29, 2006

I find the following state of affairs to be a good description of the current state of dialectic between atheists and theists on the boards:

(1) Theists have a vast array of knowledge and argumentation built up over 2000 years, which basically amounts to a ton evidence for the existence of God. It's not absolute proof, because true, sure enough, actual absolute proof is just damn hard to come by on anything--even most scientific things; which is why they invented inductive reasoning. Science accepts correlation's as signs of caudal relationships, it doesn't ever actually observe causality at work. But that kind of indicative relationship is not good for atheists when a God argument is involved. Then it must be absolute demonstration and direct observation.

(2) This double standard always works in favor of the atheist and never in favor of the theist. I suspect that's because Theists are trying to persuade atheists that a certain state of affairs is the case, and at the same time we are apt to be less critical of our own reasons for believing that. Atheists make a habit of denial and pride themselves on it.

Why is it a double standard? Because when it works to establish a unified system of naturalistic observation the atheist is only too happy to appeal to "we never see" "we always see" and "there is a strong correlation." We never see a man raised from the dead. We never see a severed limb restored. The correlation's between naturalistic cause and effect are rock solid and always work, so science gives us truth, and religion doesn't. But when those same kinds of correlation's are used to support a God argument, they are just no darn good. to wit: we never see anything pop out of absolute noting, we never even see absolute nothing, even QM particles seem to emerge from prior conditions such as Vacuum flux, so they are not really proof of something form nothing. But O tisg tosh, that doesn't prove anything and certainly QM proves that the universe could just pop up out of nothing!

(3) "laws of physics" are not real laws, they are only descriptions, aggregates of our observations. So they can't be used to argue for God in any way. But, when it comes to miraculous claims, the observations of such must always be discounted because they violate our standard norm for observation, and we must always assume they are wrong no matter how well documented or how inexplicable. We must always assume that only naturalistic events can happen, even though the whole concept of a naturalism can only be nothing more than an aggregate of our observations about the world; and surely they are anything but exhaustive. Thus one wood think that since our observations are not enough to establish immutable laws of the universe, they would not be enough to establish a metaphysics which says that only material realms exist and only materially caused events can happen! But guess again...!

(4) The Theistic panoply of argumentation is a going concern. Quentin Smith, the top atheist philosopher says that 80% of philosophers today are theists. But when one uses philosophy in a God argument, it's just some left over junk from the middle ages; even though my God arguments are based upon S 5 modal logic which didn't exist even before the 1960s and most of the major God arguers are still living.

(5) They pooh pooh philosophy because it doesn't' produce objective concrete results. But they can't produce any scientific evidence to answer the most basic philosophical questions, and the more adept atheists will admit that it isn't the job of science to answer those questions anyway. Scientific evidence cannot give us answers on the most basic philosophical questions, rather than seeing this as a failing in science (or better yet, evidence of differing magister) they rather just chalice it up to the failing of the question! The question is no good because our methods dot' answer it!

(6) What it appears to me is the case is this; some methods are better tailed for philosophy. Those methods are more likely to yield a God argument and even a rational warrant for belief, because God is a philosophical question and not a scientific one. God is a matter of faint, after all, and in matters of faith a rational warrant is the best one should even hope for. But that's not good enough for atheists, they disparage the whole idea of a philosophical question (at least the scientistic ones do--that's not all of them, but some) yet they want an open ended universe with no hard and fast truth and no hard and fast morality!

(7)So it seems that if one accepts certain methods one can prove God within the nature of that language game. now of course one can reject those language games and choose others that are not quite as cozy with the divine and that's OK too. Niether approach is indicative of one's intelligence or one's morality. But, it does mean that since it may be just as rational given the choice of axioms and methodologies, then what that taps out to is belief in God is rationally warrented--it may not be only rational conclusion but it is one ratinal conclusion Now i know all these guys like Barron and HRG will say "hey I'm fine with that." But then when push comes to shove they will be back again insisting that the lack of absolute proof leaves the method that yields God arguments in doubt, rather than the other way around. I don't see why either should be privileged. Why can't we just say that one method is better suited for one kind of question, the other for the other?

and if one of them says 'why should I ask those questions?' I say 'why shouldn't we leave the choice of questions to the questioner?

Sunday, October 08, 2006

I've been off line for weeks due to the move to a more long term apartment. hopefully we will be more settaled for a bit and I can get back to posting. This is just a token in promise of more subtantial article soon.

The reason a lot of people think a God argument should spell out which reilgion is true is because they think God is a big guy in the sky. They think an argument should prove "which God" as well as that there is a God. This is becasue they don't understand the necessity of God as being itself. If one understood thatl God is eteranl necessary being they would see that only one God is possible and any idea or concept of God that includes necessity and transcendence is a sign marker pointing toward the divine. In fact contingent gods in a sense piont to this as well.

The following Psalm, if read literally demonstrates the way they understand God in anthropomorphic terms. The Psalm could also be understood in such a way as to give us a more expansive understanding of God.

Psa 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

Psa 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

Psa 104:31 The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.

Psa 104:32 He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.

Psa 104:33 I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.

Psa 104:34 My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.

Psa 104:35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

If you read this litterally you see God looking in on all of the earth and nothing happens until God says "let the grass grow" and it grows. If some day God decides not to make the grass grow, it doesn't. So we get the idea of God wandering about in his "pj's" with a cup of moring coffee saying "I don't feel like growing any grass today." In other words, it's a very human, man-like view of God. But this psalm gives us a much more expansive understanding if we read it for the suggestions brought up by the imagery rather than the literal statements. We see God relating to creation in process.

In other words, an unfolding and evolving universe is a process, God is part of that process, the initator and the sustainer, but not in the shade tree mechanic way that is pictured above. God "causes" the grass to grow, we are told, but God does not have to ride herd daily on the growing of Grass. The grass just grows, its ultimate reison d'etre is God.

This passage is great for process theology because it shows the whole of creation harmoniouisly working according to God's plan, and in harmony with God who experiences its working and while not riding herd on it like a farmer,is at least part of the balance overall.

Psa 104:2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Psa 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

The foundations of reality are alid out by God's rule. This is a very anthropomorphic way to picture it, but what it is really telling us is that God is the basis for all that is, and the foudnation of the evolving universe and the laws that govern it. God is the author of the laws of phsyics. But more than that. God, in his concresent pole, is part of the evolution of the universe, he's here pictured riding the winds and clouds as chiots, but clearly its' he's invovled with and in the workings of nature. He's intimately related in a dynamic way with the unfolding of natural law.

Psa 104:5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Psa 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

Psa 104:10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, [which] run among the hills.

Psa 104:11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.

Psa 104:12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, [which] sing among the branches.

God has laid out the basis of laws that run the universe, and is seen here as the ulimate cuasal agents in an automatic process that runs by itself. God is the ultimate cause of all things.

In the previous post I bloged an old thread from my old message board when it was called "have theology, will argue" (now Doxa Forums).

The major issue began as the lack of specificity in putative state of affairs (PSA) as "something vs nothing." I argue that there must be a PSA such that necessary being always existed (in some form) as opposed to total absolute nothingness, but I refuse to ever specify what that "Something" is. That's because (1) it would be foolish to even try (2)I should have to because that's not the point.

The point is not to spell out which God is real or which religous tradition to join. I think that's what a lot of skeptics, and perhaps believers too, expect form a God argument. But they shouldn't, because that's not the point. The religious traditions are dealt with in another way, God's arguments are merely to show the possibility of the logical warrant for belief in some sort of God.

But there is a better reason not to spell out the initial conditions, the PSA; we are dealing with the ultimate abstract realities of being and nothingness. We are dealing with being at a level prior to any formation of understanding that biological organisms might formulate on a dust mote orbiting a star. That is all that need be spelled out for the conditions of the argument.

People want more, they want to have a clear cut reference point for either rejecting or accepting the Bible and Christianity. But part of the point is that they understand God as a big guy on a throne with a beard who sits there and says "let the grass grow" and it grows. So

Religious traditions are chosen because they mediate transformative power. One choosing a tradition becasue it speaks to her with clearity and comfortably aborbs and puts at rest fears about the ultimate concerns. That is the function of a religious community, and a tradition is merely the community in action. This is the basis of deciding which reigion has the best handel on understanding God, not the basis of a God argument itself.

Friday, October 06, 2006

this was a thread on my old message boards "Have Theology, Will Argue" (from 2004). I was reading through and found it interesting.I thought to re do it into an essay, but I think it's better with the original comments and responses to them left in.

Reity = the ultimate necessary state of affairs, ultimate reality).

Deicision Paradigm:

Modus Ponens

If p than q,P, therefore, p.

If Riety, then God.Riety, therefore, God.

There must be some ultimate state of affiars, and since nothingness as a Putative State of Affairs (PSA) is impossilbe, than the there must be a state of reity such that "something" is the ultimate state of affiars.Since the most basic defintion of God is "the ground of understanding" (Flew)whatever is at the top of the metaphycial hierarchy, than whatever is the ultimate state of affiars is by deftion in a position to function as God in that methaphysical ecnonomy in which it exists.

.

Argument:

1) God is Synonimous with the State of Riety.

The Concept of God functions as Riety in any metaphysical system: God is the Transendental Signifer, the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks,the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs, ultimate reality

2) Nothingness as a putative state of affairs is impossible.

a)Marked by its own contradiction (Reity is something so it can't be total nothingness).

b)Nothingness would be a timless state, thus no change, no cause, no becoming.

c) Contradicts everything in our experience and no reason to think it would be.

3) Some Eternal state of Affiars has to have always been.

a) If nothingness as PSA is impossible, than some state eternal state of affairs had to always exist.(law of excluded middle).

b) Being cannot, therefore, be merely possible but must be ontologically necessary.

4) Since The concept of God and the reality of Riety fit the same defitions we should asssume they share the same identity.

5) Therefore, God is the state of Riety, and must therefore exist.

Asiety:

(Latin: a, from; se, self)

The property by which a being exists of and from self, a property belonging to God alone, who exists without other cause than Himself, who is independent and self-sufficient; regarded by many Fathers and theologians as the best way of expressing the very essence of God.

Aseity (Self-Existence). Most classical theists see God's Aseity or Pure Existence as a key attribute. The early church fathers, as well as Augustine (354-430), Anselm (1033-1109), and Aquinas, continually cite the Bible in support of this position. In defending God's self-existence (aseity) classical theists such as Aquinas are fond of citing Exodus 3:14 where God identifies Himself to Moses as "I Am that I Am." This they understand to refer to God as Pure Being or Existence.

Now of course one might ask:What do you mean "ultimate state of affairs", and where have you established it "must be"?

The skeptic might charge that God is a loaded term: If the definition of "God" is "whatever is the ultimate state of affairs", then perhaps we are not even arguing for that which we believe "God" to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the argument doesn't depend upon any particular PSA (putative state of affiars), other than the fact that it can't be nothingness. It works just as well if a singularity or no bounded condition. The problem, therefore, works itself out to be that we haven't really said anything. God is just "whatever there is." That would just produce a fairly tautologial statment. Whatever is the case is the case. Why say that? You can't disagree with it, but that's what I'm saying. The first state of the uinverse whatever that is. But let's be clear about one thing. I am not saying that the state of affairs would be God. I am saying only that such a state of something rather than nothing is indicative of God.

Nevertheless, the fact reamains that we can only discuss whether this is a valid argument if there is some intelligible conclusion that we are arguing for. To have an argument, one needs to have sentences which express propositions. If there is just a meaningless jumble of words, then there is no argument to address and no conclusion who truth can actually be debated. But there is a difference in providing a meaningful conclusion and having to spell out matters which are beyond the basic scope of the arugment. Many sketpics have compalined about not understanding my rguments without really having a valid objection to them other than their own lack of knolwedge. such is the case with the transcendental signifier argument.

The terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me. How about others here? Do you have any notion of what any of those terms might possibly mean?

These terms mean something to Derrida, and Rorty, and Heidegger, and Husseral and half the academic world, so you are just going to have to come up to speed.MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

I know what it means. I studied Derrida tought for four years at Doctoral level.

see my TS argument.MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

SRB7Registered UserPosts: 149(4/8/04 8:58 am)62.252.192.4Edit Del Re: God Argument: Reity--------------------------------------------------------------------------------SRBThe terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?

MetaI know what it means. I studied Derrida tought for four years at Doctoral level.

see my TS argument.[/quote]Can you give a definition of any of those terms here?

But really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right? So what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier? What is hard about that? The Uber Mench,the world soul, the zeit geuist, God, the dialectic, the Atmon, those are all exampels. What's hard about that?

Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------SRBThe terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?

The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.

Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MetaBut really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a heirarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the heirarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

Re: God Argument: Reity----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SRBThe terms "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality" all mean absolutely nothing to me....What do you think those terms might mean?

The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.

Mark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.

like God.

Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MetaBut really now, about the TS what is hard to understand about the top of a hierarchy? you can understand the concept of hierarchy right? So you can understand the concept that a hierarchy has a first principle right?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a heirarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the heirarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

then I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

SRBThe terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.

MetaMark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.

MetaSo what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?

SRBI have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a hierarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the hierarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

Metathen I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.

How does one level on the unspecified hierarchy that you keep talking about relate to the level above it? Does everything that exists appear somewhere in your hierarchy? If so, roughly where do hedgehogs appear, where do chickens appear and where does the number three appear? In what order do hedgehogs, chickens and the number three get ranked on your hierarchy?

What do you mean when you say, above, "makes it all right"?

As for the term "necessary being," I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole. I am a noncognitivist with regard talk of "necessary being."

Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The terms I would like defined are: "Transendental Signifer," "the Mark that gives meaning to all other marks," "the basic state of affairs that conditions all other affairs" and "ultimate reality." If they mean different things, then I would like a definition for each.

MetaMark that gives meaning to all other marks would be reason? Man, you want me to give you a university education here and now? I think it's clear alredy what I'm talking about. the first principel, the basic thing at the top of any metaphysial hierarachy.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SRB: I strongly lean towards the view that those four terms are all meaningless gibberish. According to you, are they supposed to each mean the same thing, or are they supposed to mean different things?[/quote]

[fon color=lightskyblue]you are alone in that opinon. Those are all excepted terms. The whole Derrridan project of the 80s and 90s was based upon using the term Tanscendental sgnifier. I think that is a sig of ingorance, not to know the major terms and not to be able to accept them as valid terms.[/font]

Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MetaSo what's hard to understand about the idea that any first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos is a Transcendental signifier?

SRBI have no notion of what it might mean to be a "first principle which unites a metaphysical hierarchy explaining the meaning of the cosmos." A family tree is a hierarchy where the next level up consists of the parents of the level below. What does a level consist of in the hierarchy you are trying to describe, and how does one level relate to the level above (or below) it? Until you say, nobody can have any idea what you are talking about. The "first principle" in a hierarchical family tree would presumably be the chronologically earliest member of the family for which records exist. What would be the "first principle" in the case of the hierarchy you are trying to describe? By "the cosmos" do you mean "the observable universe" or do you mean "absolutely everything that exists," or something else still?

Metathen I guess the 1st principelf the cosmos would be the thing that makes it all right? Necessary Being. Being itself.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------How does one level on the unspecified hierarchy that you keep talking about relate to the level above it? Does everything that exists appear somewhere in your hierarchy? If so, roughly where do hedgehogs appear, where do chickens appear and where does the number three appear? In what order do hedgehogs, chickens and the number three get ranked on your hierarchy?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EzCode Parsing Error: color=lightskyblue]would you waste your time discussing auto mechanics with some one said thigs like "well I dont' accept 'exhuast pipe' as a valid term. I accept that an inatek manifold might be a car part, but where does an inatek manifold go? Does it go in the trunck so you can take things into the trunk? That's about the level on which you are dealing here.

anyone's metaphyscal hieararchy as to have a frst principle watever that may be.An any suh 1st princpel is a Transcendental signifier. I can tell you where put your hedge hogs. and in[/font]

What do you mean when you say, above, "makes it all right"?

As for the term "necessary being," I wouldn't want to touch it with a barge pole. I am a noncognitivist with regard talk of "necessary being."

SRB

[fon color=lightskyblue]if that' what you want to call it. I have another term for it.[MetacrockHave Theology, Will Argue.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

I'm really sick of the way skeptics take themselves so seriously to express anger toward God when it's clearly obvious that God isn't the way the straw men have set him up to be. Most of this tendency goes back to taking the Bible literally. The flip side of this is the way some Christians learn to justify teh literal image as though it's really he point of the Bible an never stop to ask themselves, "what is this text really saying to me?"

The fact that most of the OT is narrative is a que for us. We should think "read between lines." It's not magic, it's literature you read it the way you would any other literature. You can understand the author probably has a point to make that is not obvious and the literal surface of the story is not the point, because in a narrative other than a children's story it seldom is. Even in children's stories we can sometimes sense that more is going on than just the gingerbread house where the witch eats children. I mean, come on. The step mother tries to kill the kids and you don't think more is going on than the surface of the story?

So take the flood for example. What kind of text is it? We should always ask this first. Its' mythology. How do we know? Because it's just like other texts of the same myth that are much older. So obvioulsy the Hebrew redactors, in using a popular universal story that had been a mainstay of thier world for thousands of years (the origianal Suemrian epic is copied by the Babylonians and datesa bout 2000 years older than Genesis--in the Sumerian myth of Eden the Sumerian Adam is named Adam, but Eve is Adapa. In Sumerian flood story--Gilgamesh--Noah is Upnapishtim).

While the skeptic looks at the flood and says "O gee, God is cruel and evil to kill all those people, he must have afraid to let people have fun" or whatever they might say, we know that'snot the point. We have to look past the sruface plot. It's not about God being angry and killing everyone,that's just a plot device because they used a pagan myth that was already around. That's just part of the story that's a given for them. So let's ask ourselves why would they uset his story rather than make up their own? Because they have a point to make about what the pagan story says. What is says basically is that the gods were capcrecious. They destroyed the world because people were making too much noise.It also says Upnapistem survived the flood so Gilgamesh seeks him out to learn the secret of eternal life. The Hebrews are saying God is not caprious but if he did destroy the world he would do so for moral reasons and for good reasons not because they are making too much noise.

Our modern skeptics who know so little of the ancient world can only compare the story with our value system and since they expect everything to hold their values (modern skeptics are so ethnocentric) they conclude that gods not good because he doesn't hold their values. They just don't see that actually Genesis is closer to expressing the value with which they agree than are the original myths from which barrows. Then the point about eternal life, the point in Genesis is that God will keep us safe throuig the danger and give us new life if we hold fast in faith. Eternal life comes from faith in God, not form fate or luck.

These are the kinds of ponits being made by the story, not "you better shape up or God will kill you." The cruelty of God in tho flood story is just handed down from a previous version and has nothing to do with thei real encounter of th divine that Christians expernce. Of course God would never really kill all the people of the world in that way.

But here's antoher point, we might be killing ourselves and since we aren't willing ot lsiten to God he can't warn us.

Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguments for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability.
Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you.
Order from Amazon

Buy my brother's Poetry: Ray Hinman, Our Cities Vanish

Click on image to Buy this book

MUST READ
Here’s a book that has almost nothing to do with religion, but I recommend for everyone: City Limit:
While it is a novel, it rings as true in a sense as any work of nonfiction out there.
This work is about the disturbing core of our society...
This is a powerful first novel, from Lantzey Miller, which I cannot too-highly recommend.
Grand Viaduct